Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: General RVing Issues: Trouble with California
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in General RVing Issues

Open Roads Forum  >  General RVing Issues

 > Trouble with California

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 29  
Prev  |  Next
hotpepperkid

Kingman AZ

Senior Member

Joined: 03/29/2002

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/18/20 10:47am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

When I come for AZ to CA on I-40 they either ask if I have any fire wood or where did you come from today. The answer to the fire wood is no and the other answer is home


2019 Ford F-350 long bed SRW 4X4 6.4 PSD Grand Designs Reflection 295RL 5th wheel

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/18/20 11:57am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

And people, there is such thing as "motor vehicle exception", and that includes RVs and trailers (being pulled by semis) first established by the Supreme Court in 1925 that motor vehicles can be subject to warrantless search. You in effect impliedly waived your rights to be searched without warrant upon purchase of the vehicle.


Your statement is only partially true though isn't it. You conveniently left out the bit _requiring_ the officer to have probable cause and said probable cause is reliant upon RAS, (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion). Thus the officer needs to be able to explain to you why he intends to search and that explanation must be "reasonable".


Tell me which of these can't be checked in the box of probably cause for OP's RV inspection:

1. Passing by a state with insect or agricultural virus infestation.

2. Insect hitch-hikers.

3. Fruits, vegetable, plant, soil, fungus, non native aquatic species, infected wood, firewood from infected tree species...

4. Wildlife products banned in the state.

am1958

SE Michigan

Senior Member

Joined: 04/10/2014

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/18/20 03:25pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

And people, there is such thing as "motor vehicle exception", and that includes RVs and trailers (being pulled by semis) first established by the Supreme Court in 1925 that motor vehicles can be subject to warrantless search. You in effect impliedly waived your rights to be searched without warrant upon purchase of the vehicle.


Your statement is only partially true though isn't it. You conveniently left out the bit _requiring_ the officer to have probable cause and said probable cause is reliant upon RAS, (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion). Thus the officer needs to be able to explain to you why he intends to search and that explanation must be "reasonable".


Tell me which of these can't be checked in the box of probably cause for OP's RV inspection:

1. Passing by a state with insect or agricultural virus infestation.

2. Insect hitch-hikers.

3. Fruits, vegetable, plant, soil, fungus, non native aquatic species, infected wood, firewood from infected tree species...

4. Wildlife products banned in the state.


You're being horribly disingenuous aren't you?

You started by saying that the Supremes said that vehicles are fair game for warrentless searches back in 1925 while setting aside the absolute requirement for RAS. Now, you come back and start arguing that non LEO/agricultural searches are mandatory. They aren't simply because anyone can refuse the search and turn around. Try that when an officer has RAS.

Quit trying to be obtuse and spreading incorrect information

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/18/20 06:32pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

am1958 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

And people, there is such thing as "motor vehicle exception", and that includes RVs and trailers (being pulled by semis) first established by the Supreme Court in 1925 that motor vehicles can be subject to warrantless search. You in effect impliedly waived your rights to be searched without warrant upon purchase of the vehicle.


Your statement is only partially true though isn't it. You conveniently left out the bit _requiring_ the officer to have probable cause and said probable cause is reliant upon RAS, (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion). Thus the officer needs to be able to explain to you why he intends to search and that explanation must be "reasonable".


Tell me which of these can't be checked in the box of probably cause for OP's RV inspection:

1. Passing by a state with insect or agricultural virus infestation.

2. Insect hitch-hikers.

3. Fruits, vegetable, plant, soil, fungus, non native aquatic species, infected wood, firewood from infected tree species...

4. Wildlife products banned in the state.


You're being horribly disingenuous aren't you?

You started by saying that the Supremes said that vehicles are fair game for warrentless searches back in 1925 while setting aside the absolute requirement for RAS. Now, you come back and start arguing that non LEO/agricultural searches are mandatory. They aren't simply because anyone can refuse the search and turn around. Try that when an officer has RAS.

Quit trying to be obtuse and spreading incorrect information


Seriously, I'm the obtuse one when you found yourself embarrassed by being unable to dispute my premise by being unable to check any of the boxes as "probable cause"?

Dude, the probable cause is so lax that it's does not even need "suspicion of illegal activity."

My 3 options (there are more), are from an agri-inspector who used to be my neighbor and added that those who are turning-around refusing search most likely carry illegal contraband and will be reported to the LEO and maybe interjected on their way to Nevada.

hotpepperkid

Kingman AZ

Senior Member

Joined: 03/29/2002

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/18/20 10:01pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

From a Sargent of the Orange CA sheriff office. may I search your car the answer is no

lakeside013104

North America

Senior Member

Joined: 07/26/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 04:52am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

toedtoes wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Deb and Ed M wrote:

But an AG stop isn't about police enforcement - it's about protecting an area from invaders you surely don't know that you are transporting. Why on Earth would you not let someone find a pest that can create havoc in an environment?


Yes, but the uniform asks me, "Are you carrying fruits, veggies, or plants?" No. At that point, maybe tell me of the harm that could come from my fruit, fine. But "Can I come in and look?" Would translate in my mind to YOU ARE LYING! If uniform thinks they need to see for themselves, ask it inspect, don't ask what I have.


And this is what it comes down to: "they think I'm lying". People take that as a personal insult and get an attitude about it. Then the whole thing goes south.

In reality, it was NOT a personal attack. The inspector doesn't know the OP or anyone going through that checkpoint. They are simply making a quick judgment call as to which vehicle is most likely carrying a problem. An RV from across the country - far more likely to be carrying infected fruit than a compact car from in-state. So, they question the answer.

Years ago, I got stopped after a night out with friends. I had missed a turn and made an illegal u-turn. The officer asked me if I had been drinking. I said no, but my friends had and she's about to throw up. He had me "walk the line". Did I take it personally and get all mad? No, I did as he asked and passed the test and he let me go with a war ning. I could look beyond the "accusation" that I was lying and realize that it wasn't that off to think I could be lying. And if I had been drinking, I would have most likely BEEN LYING about not drinking.

Singularly, in the OP's situation, the inspector asked the question, then considered the odds that this person could be lying and decided it was enough of a chance to ask to look inside.

There was nothing more sinister than that.


Toedtoes.....well said "People take that as a personal insult and get an attitude about it. Then the whole thing goes south."

and often the reason why deadly force is perceived to be the only option to ensure that the Officer gets home to their family at the end of their shift.

In many instances, had calmer less belligerent attitude been utilized by the perpetrator, the Officer would have followed suit and the entire incident would have ended differently.

The time to argue or give 'attitude' is not at the place of the incident. Everyone has a chance to challenge the actions of the Officer in court, at the Officer's supervisor's office, on at another place and time than the place of the traffic stop. EVERY traffic stop has the potential to turn ugly. A more neutral place other than the place of the traffic stop is better for all parties involved and allows for calmer and cooler decisions to be made by all evolved where emotions are less of a determining factor.

By not giving attitude at the scene if you 'think' you have been wronged, you may loose the battle, but you will win the war in the end by not becoming a statistic that ends up with a headstone. If you feel you are 'wronged' the place to challenge that is in court, at the Officer's Supervisor's desk, or in the media if you so choose. Key note: you will be around to make that challenge on neutral ground rather than be in the ground.

Cooler calmer and more respectful heads prevail! More people involved will be home to their families after the 'incident' with a story to tell and an ax to grind, if they so choose, in a more controlled environment.

Safe travels,

Lakeside

JRscooby

Indepmo

Senior Member

Joined: 06/10/2019

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 06:42am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Yeah, the individual rights of a car or RV owner not to be searched without warrant agains the welfare of millions of Californian's depending in their agricultural livelihood.


I'm sure that many states the majority of the population depends on agriculture for their living. But the only "inspection" when crossing most state lines is the weigh station for CMVs

JRscooby

Indepmo

Senior Member

Joined: 06/10/2019

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 07:09am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

lakeside013104 wrote:




EVERY traffic stop has the potential to turn ugly.


This is true, and IMHO, a very good reason to not do stops without knowing somebody is likely doing wrong.

Quote:

and often the reason why deadly force is perceived to be the only option to ensure that the Officer gets home to their family at the end of their shift.


This statement is a major part of the problem. Why is it more important for the cop, compared to any other person, to get home safe?
And if a LEO stops you it is dangerous to assert your rights at the scene. But, it has been proven that a very small percentage of police abuse of power will be punished, even when reported. So every time a "law abiding citizen" accepts a abuse of his rights he gives a paranoid reinforcement that he is all powerful.

Turtle n Peeps

California

Senior Member

Joined: 06/23/2008

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 11:00am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I have watched this many times and still think it's super funny.

The fruit Nazi part 1.

The fruit Nazi part 2.

The fruit Nazi has to let people go, part 3.

Follow up phone call to fruit Nazi.

The fruit Nazi: "if you want to take off......."


~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~


"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."- Abraham Lincoln


Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/19/20 12:21pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

JRscooby wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Yeah, the individual rights of a car or RV owner not to be searched without warrant agains the welfare of millions of Californian's depending in their agricultural livelihood.


I'm sure that many states the majority of the population depends on agriculture for their living. But the only "inspection" when crossing most state lines is the weigh station for CMVs


I'm not sure why the leader has to copy and follow the non-leaders.

CA has the biggest agri industry and the most insect-infestation sensitive fruits and orchards.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 29  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  General RVing Issues

 > Trouble with California
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in General RVing Issues


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.